U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of South Florida floating home owner

It was a battle that started in the waters of the Riviera Beach Marina and ended Tuesday in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the middle of the dispute was a "floating home" owned by resident Fane Lozman, and the city's desire to get him and his 60-foot plywood structure out of its marina. After the city took him to court, two federal rulings allowed Lozman's home to be seized and eventually destroyed.

But the Supreme Court has overturned those rulings, saying that Lozman's home was not a "vessel" which would have been subject to the maritime laws used to take it from him.

"I'm doing fantastic," Lozman, 51, said Tuesday. "I'm very humbled that the Supreme Court agreed to hear my case. Myself and my legal team were just ecstatic."

For floating home owners, Tuesday's Supreme Court decision clarified the difference between house boats that fall under maritime law and floating homes that are not vessels, and therefore are not subject to federal admiralty laws, said Kerri Barsh, a Miami attorney who served as co-counsel on Lozman's legal team.

"What this says is that 'this is what a vessel is,'" Barsh said. "If isn't a vessel, you can't evoke maritime liens to evict somebody."

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer overruled a federal appeals court's interpretation of what constituted a nautical vessel. He wrote that a vessel is "designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water."

Lozman's floating home had no steering mechanism and lacked any form of self-propulsion, Breyer noted. He wrote that "nothing" about the design of Lozman's floating home suggested it was designed for transport.

"Not every floating structure is a 'vessel,'" Breyer wrote. "To state the obvious, a wooden washtub, a plastic dishpan, a swimming platform on pontoons, a large fishing net, a door taken off its hinges, or Pinocchio (when inside the whale) are not 'vessels...'"

The two dissenting justices, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Anthony M. Kennedy, argued that the court was "not in a good position" to determine if the house boat was a vessel or not.

"The majority fails to explain how a craft that apparently did carry people and things over water for long distances was not 'practically capable' of maritime transport," Sotomayor wrote.

Jeffrey L. Fisher, the Stanford University law professor who argued Lozman's case before the Supreme Court justices, said that now, owners of floating homes won't find themselves at risk of having "federal maritime law thrust upon them improperly."

"Floating homes, whether in Florida or in communities in other places, will be treated as homes, not as boats," Fisher said.

Fisher said that the likely reason the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case was because of conflicting federal court decisions involving maritime laws and floating structures. Clarity was needed.

"I think that's what caused the court to step in," Fisher said.

For its part, Riviera Beach spokesman William Jiles said Tuesday afternoon that city officials were giving "deliberate reflection" to the Court's decision.

"We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's ruling; however, we respect and accept the decision, and we will abide by legal implications that flow from it," said Riviera Beach city attorney Pamala Ryan, in a statement.

Ryan also said the city will be revising its marina rules to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court decision.

The city will also reimburse Lozman the $300 filing fee and printing costs associated with the Supreme Court case, Ryan said.

Lozman, a developer of financial trading software, said his next step will likely be to appear before a federal court judge in an attempt to recoup financial losses including legal fees, which he said run into the six figure range. He also wants the $25,000 bond the federal court ordered Riviera Beach to post before the sale of the floating home.

Lozman said he now lives in Miami-Dade County, but was reluctant to give more details, saying the dispute with Riviera Beach resulted in him receiving death threats. He said he became a target of city officials in Riviera Beach after he battled controversial plans for a redevelopment of the marina beginning in 2006, shortly after he moved to the city.

Lozman mused about the possibility of returning to live in a floating home at the Riviera Beach Marina.